Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit in powerless individuals

The effects of power legitimacy on self-regulation during goal pursuit were examined. Study 1 focused on goal-setting and goal-striving. Specifically, it examined how much time legitimate and illegitimate powerless individuals needed to set goals, and how many means they generated to pursue these goals. Study 2 examined persistence in the face of difficulties. Consistently across these studies illegitimacy improved self-regulation in powerless individuals. Illegitimate powerless individuals behaved similarly as control participants. They took less time to decide on a course of action, used more flexible means to strive for goals, and persisted longer in the face of difficulties, compared to their legitimate counterparts. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

权力感对个体的影响:调节定向的视角

采用4个研究探究了权力感对调节定向的影响。研究1通过测量被试的特质性权力感和特质性调节定向初步探索权力感水平与调节定向的关系。研究2和研究3分别通过外显角色扮演和故事回忆法来探究状态性权力感对调节定向目标表征和策略选择的影响。研究4采用身体姿势法启动权力感,进一步探究在内隐层面权力感对调节定向的影响。结果发现,高权力感个体更倾向于促进定向;而低权力感个体更倾向于预防定向,并且排除了其中可能的无关变量(情绪)的影响。本研究有助于更好地理解和整合现有的权力感研究结果,并能预测更多未知的权力感效应。     

Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach

A wealth of research has found that power leads to behavioral approach and action. Four experiments demonstrate that this link between power and approach is broken when the power relationship is illegitimate. When power was primed to be legitimate or when power positions were assigned legitimately, the powerful demonstrated more approach than the powerless. However, when power was experienced as illegitimate, the powerless displayed as much approach as, or even more approach than, the powerful. This moderating effect of legitimacy occurred regardless of whether power and legitimacy were manipulated through experiential primes, semantic primes, or role manipulations. It held true for behavioral approach (Experiment 1) and two effects associated with it: the propensity to negotiate (Experiment 2) and risk preferences (Experiments 3 and 4). These findings demonstrate that how power is conceptualized, acquired, and wielded determines its psychological consequences and add insight into not only when but also why power leads to approach.     

Why do superiors attend to negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception

Power can be defined as control over other people's outcomes. Using this definition, we explored the impact of power on attentional processes involved in impression formation. Because powerful individuals may want to maintain and justify their position, powerful participants should pay particular attention to negative stereotype‐consistent information about their subordinates. In contrast, powerless participants should devote their attention to stereotype‐inconsistent information in an attempt to increase their control over the social context. Study 1 directly manipulated control by assigning participants to the role of leader or subordinate in a task group. Results showed that, compared to subordinates, leaders devoted more attention to negative stereotypic attributes. Study 2 manipulated the legitimacy of power and replicated the pattern found in Study 1 but only when power was illegitimate. Our findings suggest that the experience of power can be associated with feelings of threat, especially when power is illegitimate, thereby orienting impression‐formation processes toward information likely to maintain the existing social structure. We discuss our results in the context of current work on motivated social cognition, social identity, and legitimisation. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Relations between high and low power groups: the importance of legitimacy

Using a social identity perspective, two experiments examined the effects of power and the legitimacy of power differentials on intergroup bias. In Experiment 1, 125 math-science students were led to believe that they had high or low representation in a university decision-making body relative to social-science students and that this power position was either legitimate or illegitimate. Power did not have an independent effect on bias; rather, members of both high and low power groups showed more bias when the power hierarchy was illegitimate than when it was legitimate. This effect was replicated in Experiment 2 (N = 105). In addition, Experiment 2 showed that groups located within an unfair power hierarchy expected the superordinate power body to be more discriminatory than did those who had legitimately high or low power. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for group relations.     

The effects of leader illegitimacy on leaders' and subordinates' responses to relinquishing power decisions

This research examined how leader illegitimacy affects leaders' and subordinates' responses to relinquishing power decisions. The processes underlying responses to leader illegitimacy and relinquishing power were also examined. Across four studies, participants were placed in leader roles (Studies 1a/1b) or subordinate roles (Studies 2a/2b) in an online competition. In Studies 1a/1b, participants assigned a leadership role learned, via a leadership skills test, that their leadership was illegitimate or legitimate. By contrast, in Studies 2a/2b, participants assigned a subordinate role were confronted with either an illegitimate leader who retained their power after performing poorly or a legitimate leader who received the leader role after a poor‐performing leader had relinquished their power. Results demonstrated that leaders who felt they did not belong in their leadership role relinquished more power when their leadership was illegitimate (vs. legitimate) and subordinates who felt less in control and greater anger supported illegitimate (vs. legitimate) leaders less.     

权力对控制错觉的影响

本研究采用实验法探讨了权力及其合理性对控制错觉的影响。结果发现:（1）权力启动会对控制错觉产生影响,即相较于低权力,高权力会导致个体产生高估的控制错觉;（2）权力的合理性与权力水平在控制感上存在交互效应,即权力关系合理时,高权力导致高估的控制错觉,而权力关系不合理时,低权力导致高估的控制错觉。这表明控制错觉会受到动态的基于情境的权力关系以及权力合理性的影响。     

Diehard singles: Bachelorhood as a terror management strategy among avoidant men

This research examines the motivational underpinnings of late bachelorhood through the lens of terror management and attachment theory. It was hypothesized that, although close relationships reduce existential concerns for most people, for avoidantly attached singles, thoughts of marriage may increase existential concerns. These hypotheses were tested in two studies among Israeli men. In Study 1, thoughts about getting married increased death thought accessibility (DTA) among avoidant singles compared to thoughts about being alone or a neutral control condition. For nonavoidant singles, thinking about future marriage reduced DTA. In Study 2, mortality salience reduced motivations for being in a relationship among avoidant singles and increased such motivation among those low in avoidant attachment. Results suggest that marriage may cause angst among avoidant single men.     

Group commitment in the face of discrimination: The role of legitimacy appraisals

In contrast to everyday use of the term discrimination, we propose that discrimination can be appraised as either illegitimate or legitimate, and a comprehensive analysis of responses to discrimination needs to account for both ways of experiencing discrimination. We examine how perceived pervasiveness of discrimination and legitimacy appraisals affect group commitment among women in academia (Study 1) and tobacco smokers facing an upcoming smoking ban (Study 2). We found support for our hypothesis that legitimacy of discrimination appraisals moderates the effect of pervasiveness of discrimination. In both studies, group identification and collective action intentions were undermined most when the ingroup claimed that discrimination against them was legitimate and discrimination was perceived as pervasive. In both studies, group identification mediated the effects on collective action intentions. The results highlight the important role of legitimacy appraisals in understanding disadvantaged group members' responses to discriminatory treatment. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Getting what you want: Power increases the accessibility of active goals

Power facilitates goal-directed behavior. Two studies, using different types of goals, examined the cognitive mechanisms that underlie this tendency. Participants, primed with power or powerlessness, performed lexical decision tasks that assessed the relative facilitation of goal-relevant constructs during goal striving and after goal attainment. Results showed that during goal striving powerful participants manifested an increased facilitation of goal-relevant constructs compared to other constructs, and this facilitation decreased immediately after goal completion. In contrast, their powerless counterparts showed less facilitation of goal constructs during goal striving and maintained goal accessibility after completion. These results are consistent with the effects of power on goal-directed behavior found in past research.     

Social power increases implicit prejudice

The effects of power on implicit and explicit attitudes towards racial groups were examined. In Study 1, participants who had power showed a stronger facilitation of positive words after exposure to White faces, and negative words after exposure to Black faces, compared to participants who did not have power. In Study 2, powerful participants, compared to controls and powerless participants, showed more positive affective responses to Chinese pictographs that followed White compared to Black faces. Power did, however, not affect explicit racial attitudes. In Study 3, powerful participants showed greater racial prejudice toward Arabs in an Implicit Association Test than did powerless participants. This effect was driven by the power of the perceiver rather than the power of the target. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Power imbalance,its legitimacy,and aggression

Sixty Japanese female students were asked to exchange shocks in electric roulette games with female opponents. The subjects were assigned to either the 80%, 50%, or 20% win conditions. Half of them were then led to judge that the power unbalance was legitimate by being informed that the assignment was based on a prior performance contest, with the good performer being assigned to the advantageous position. The other subjects were led to perceive the power imbalance as illegitimate by being informed that the assignment was randomly decided. The opponents always severely attacked them. The retaliation by the subjects was analyzed by a two-way ANOVA with Power Imbalance and Legitimacy. It was found that the subjects both in the 20% and 50% win conditions set more intense shocks to their opponents than those in the 80% win condition. This is not consistent with the fear of retaliation hypothesis which had predicted that the subjects would refrain from intensely aggressing against the opponent who had a greater aggressive capacity. It was also found that in the 80% win condition, the subjects set more intense shocks when the unbalance had been determined by their performance than when determined by luck, whereas in the 20% win condition, they set more intense shocks when the imbalance had been determined by luck than when determined by their performance. These suggest that retaliation depended upon perceived justifiability of aggression which was predicated on the legitimacy of the power imbalance. Finding in the 50% win condition that the shock settings were higher when the power imbalance had been determined by their performance than when determined by luck was interpreted in terms of their heightened competitiveness.     

Group power as a determinant of interdependence and intergroup discrimination

This experiment (N = 239) investigated the effects of group power and legitimacy of power differentials on intergroup discrimination, measured through negative outcome allocations and linguistic abstraction. Furthermore, it examined the mechanisms through which group power affects discrimination by testing the mediating role of perceived interdependence and social identification. Three power conditions were created by modifying the standard minimal group paradigm: equal, high and low power conditions. Power was directly proportional (legitimate conditions) or inversely proportional (illegitimate conditions) to group members' performance in a problem-solving task. Results showed that intergroup discrimination in the high and low power conditions was higher than in the equal power condition on both the allocation and the linguistic measures. Legitimacy moderated the effect of group power on negative outcome allocations, while it had a main effect on the linguistic abstraction. In addition, perceived interdependence turned out to be the main mediator of the effect of power on negative outcome allocations. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The pathway to accepting derogatory ingroup norms: The roles of compartmentalization and legitimacy

ObjectivesThe current experiment was conducted among ice hockey fans, and brings together theories of intergroup relations and self and identity literature. It investigated if perceiving strong norms in favor of derogating against fans of outgroup teams, and engaging in these behaviors oneself, leads to an increased compartmentalization of these behaviors (i.e., such that they are restricted to a particular compartment within the self). This association was expected to be especially strong when derogatory behaviors are portrayed as illegitimate. We also explored whether this compartmentalization then flows on to vitality as a well-being indicator.Method and designIce hockey fans supporting a diversity of NHL teams were recruited (N = 116). The legitimacy of the derogatory behaviors was manipulated by making salient either: that these behaviors have harmful consequences for outgroup members (illegitimate condition) vs. that such behaviors can benefit the ingroup (legitimate condition).ResultsThe expected mediated model was supported among the entire sample. The association between engaging in the derogatory behaviors and their compartmentalization in the self was also moderated by the experimental manipulation: While participants in the illegitimate condition reported a positive link between engaging in these behaviors and their compartmentalization, participants in the legitimate condition did not show a significant association between these variables, suggesting no need for them to restrict these behaviors within themselves.ConclusionsResults are discussed in light of normative approaches, intergroup theories, and the self.     

Advantaged group's emotional reactions to intergroup inequality: the dynamics of pride, guilt, and sympathy

Three studies establish intergroup inequality to investigate how it is emotionally experienced by the advantaged. Studies 1 and 2 examine psychology students' emotional experience of their unequal job situation with worse-off pedagogy students. When inequality is ingroup focused and legitimate, participants experience more pride. However, when inequality is ingroup focused and illegitimate, participants experience more guilt. Sympathy is increased when inequality is outgroup focused and illegitimate. These emotions have particular effects on behavioral tendencies. In Study 2 group-based pride predicts greater ingroup favoritism in a resource distribution task, whereas group-based sympathy predicts less ingroup favoritism. Study 3 replicates these findings in the context of students' willingness to let young immigrants take part in a university sport. Pride predicts less willingness to let immigrants take part whereas sympathy predicts greater willingness. Guilt is a weak predictor of behavioral tendencies in all studies. This shows the specificity of emotions experienced about intergroup inequality.     

A Sense of Powerlessness Fosters System Justification: Implications for the Legitimation of Authority,Hierarchy, and Government

In an attempt to explain the stability of hierarchy, we focus on the perspective of the powerless and how a subjective sense of dependence leads them to imbue the system and its authorities with legitimacy. In Study 1, we found in a nationally representative sample of U.S. employees that financial dependence on one's job was positively associated with the perceived legitimacy of one's supervisor. In Study 2, we observed that a general sense of powerlessness was positively correlated with the perceived legitimacy of the economic system. In Studies 3 and 4, priming experimental participants with feelings of powerlessness increased their justification of the social system, even when they were presented with system‐challenging explanations for race, class, and gender disparities. In Study 5, we demonstrated that the experience of powerlessness increased legitimation of governmental authorities (relative to baseline conditions). The processes we identify are likely to perpetuate inequality insofar as the powerless justify rather than strive to change the hierarchical structures that disadvantage them.     

社会公正对权威合法性的影响:社会阶层的调节作用

社会层面中的权威合法性研究是国内外学者和管理实践者近来关注的重要问题。而社会公正的两个维度——分配公正和程序公正对权威合法性的交互作用的结果并不一致。本研究基于解释水平理论,提出社会阶层能调节分配公正和程序公正对权威合法性感知的交互作用,并通过实验室研究和情境启动两种方法进行验证。结果发现对低阶层者来说,无论是否程序公正,分配公正能显著提高个体的权威合法性感知;在分配公正和多得不公条件下,程序公正显著降低权威合法性感知。对高阶层者来说,分配公正能显著提高程序公正时的权威合法性感知;程序公正能显著提高分配公正时的权威合法性感知。研究结果启示社会管理者在推行依法治国时应针对不同阶层民众的思维方式采取管理策略。     

When status differences are illegitimate,groups' needs diverge: Testing the needs‐based model of reconciliation in contexts of status inequality

The present paper extends the needs‐based model of reconciliation to contexts marked by status inequalities rather than by overt intergroup aggression. Specifically, we investigated whether and when members of high‐status versus low‐status groups experience divergent socio‐emotional needs vis‐à‐vis members of the respective other status group. Building on research informed by social identity theory, we hypothesized that the groups' different positions in the social hierarchy only translate into divergent needs when the status differences are perceived as illegitimate. In Study 1 (N = 130), we tested this prediction by manipulating status and perceived legitimacy of status differences in a setting with artificially created groups. Results confirmed that the need to be socially accepted by members of the other status group was stronger in high‐status compared with low‐status group members but, as expected, only when the status differences were perceived to be illegitimate. Also as predicted, the need to be empowered by the other status group was stronger in low‐status compared with high‐status group members, again only under conditions of illegitimate status differences. Study 2 (N = 169) further corroborated our perspective by replicating these findings in a naturalistic intergroup context. Implications for the role of legitimacy perceptions in determining differential socio‐emotional needs and for the promotion of sustainable social change are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Disobeying an Illegitimate Request in a Democratic or Authoritarian System

Crimes of obedience in the form of illegal or immoral acts committed in response to orders from authority occur in many contexts. In particular, under some circumstances of threats, people can easily accept restrictions upon democratic procedures. Recent studies have underlined the role of legitimacy in understanding the authority relationship and the importance of evaluating the legitimacy of the request rather than the legitimacy of the authority in preventing the rise of authoritarianism. The purpose of this study was to verify if people respond differently when an illegitimate request is put forward by a democratic or an authoritarian authority. The results on 224 subjects confirmed that people tend to be more obedient when they perceive authorities as democratic, notwithstanding the legitimacy of their requests.     

Effects of legitimizing discrimination against homosexuals on gay bashing

We used a computer harassment paradigm to test the hypothesis that affirming the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals increases the likelihood that heterosexual men will engage in verbal gay bashing. Legitimacy of discrimination was varied among heterosexual males (N = 167) by suggesting that denying homosexuals rights and benefits is either illegitimate or legitimate, and participants interacted online with either a gay or straight bogus discussion partner. Results show that (a) participants sent more offensive comments when the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals was affirmed, and (b) legitimacy affected gay bashing through its effect on collective guilt. These findings suggest that challenging the legitimacy of discrimination can be an effective strategy for reducing outgroup derogation. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.